Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
From: Sawyer X
July 3, 2020 18:34
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID: email@example.com
On 7/3/20 8:06 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:42 AM Sawyer X <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 6/30/20 5:50 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:54 PM Kent Fredric <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> the net result, whatever p5p does
>>> For the record, p5p has nothing to do with it. The public mailing
>>> list appears to have been carefully and intentionally excluded from
>>> the first few months of Perl 7 development,
>> I understand how this seems, but I want to try and explain this:
> Thanks for the reply. I think I already understand how you see the
> mailing list.
>> * p5p has a record of being a very unfruitful place for in-depth public
>> discussion which is not laser focused.
>> * Since the proposal is too large for p5p to properly evaluate - this
>> thread is strong evidence of it - we had discussed it within that group.
>> Now, I understand this seems like a no-starter and many think that any
>> such plan should go to p5p, but I disagree. p5p is not the developers
>> mailing list as it intends to be. In practice, it is a mailing list for
>> those interested in the development, which the developers are part of.
>> In short, it's difficult to engage in the way that the list - or some
>> people on the list - would like people to engage in. I do apologize I am
>> not able to keep up. I wish I could.
> However difficult it is to engage the mailing list (and I've been an
> observer of at least some of those difficulties for a couple of
> decades), it's never been considered optional. This is partly
> convention and tradition, but not just of the "we've always done it
> this way" type but more because there's never been an equally
> efficient (if messy) mechanism for providing transparency and keeping
> the "open" in open source. My reading of L<perlpolicy/GOVERNANCE> is
> that making major changes to Perl actually requires consulting p5p
> (what Larry calls the legislative branch).
I think our interpretation of "p5p" is different. Despite how it might
seem to some people (not you necessarily), I don't make almost *any*
decision by myself. There are myriad of reasons - I don't have as much
experience as many others, I don't have as much expertise as many
others. Decisions I make are always done as part of a group. We don't
always have a consensus, but I always make it within as large a group as
I can - emphasis on *can*.
This decision was done with the core of effective contributors to the
language who attend the summit and with numerous stakeholders. I do
consider this having been done *with* p5p - not just "consulting,"
rather than by myself. It just wasn't done with the "p5p mailing list"
which includes many who are not developers of the language or
stakeholders in it.
I understand this upsets many. Some we should've reached out to
(yourself included) and some who assume *everyone* (or at least everyone
on this list) have the same say in what decisions will be made. For
those that should've been also consulted (even for a +1 on their end), I
do apologize. For those who believe *everyone* should've been consulted,
I direct them to the history of "p5p" and its capability at making such
design decisions done in the great vast space of this mailing list. We
just couldn't do it this way.